Question:
Has anyone got this Plasma Display? Is it good? I'm seeing it all over now at reduced price average £2700 - £2900 inc VAT and it has a Res of 1024 * 1024 which to me is very good for the price. Am I missing something, or are Plasma's getting cheaper to make way for the next gen?
Wanting to make this my first Plasma or any other recommends with Hi-Def for £3000 or under..
Something on it in this thread .
The 3000 series of the same display is more consumer oriented and can be got for 3 grand. The fans are in the tuner box rather than the display on that model (whether that makes a difference or not)
T.
I think the 400 model is 2.5k at richer sounds.
[edit] - im not sure what I wrote is actually correct
I have the 42pd3000 display. Yes its at 1024x1024. So I set my pc to display at 1024x1024 and everthing is hunkydory. I dont follow the problem, unless your video card doesn't do 1024x1024 I suppose.
Originally posted by poggs
I have the 42pd3000 display. Yes its at 1024x1024. So I set my pc to display at 1024x1024 and everthing is hunkydory. I dont follow the problem, unless your video card doesn't do 1024x1024 I suppose.
as you actually have the display i'll repeat my thoughts, but please feel free to let me know if i'm wrong
1. You need the card to be able to output 1024x1024, it either will or it won't - fair enough
2. The panel is a 16:9 ratio with a native resolution of 1024x1024 so when you link up a PC (PC pixels are square) the picture will have a distorted aspect ratio
3. This may or may not bother you for normal use but would bother me and isn't any good for watching DVDs (software may be able to correct this)
4. If you feed it any other ratios then the signal will have to be scaled to fit the panel which may be great or may be rubbish (what's your experience of this ?)
5. Of course most of the above is irrelevant if you are just plugging "normal" devices in and using it with a PC ocassionally/never - in which case if the picture looks good to you then go for it :)
I also think seem to recall that these screens use ALIS (?) technology which is different to that used by the Pioneer - not having seen or own either i'm not sure which is better/worse or if they are just different
Personally i'm after one that has a true 16:9 resolution, can accurately display a range of refresh rates (is this possible or do they already)
Phil
aha ok so it would be better going for a Plasma TV rather than display? ( i thought they were the same) I want to just watch DVD's only on it, no PC or TV signal on it.
The Plasma displays usually have reasonable connectivity (component/svideo/composite/vga) - but it's on the Plasma TVs (usually via a tuner box you get things like RGB SCART etc
A progressive scan DVD will be your best bet - do check out the differences between the ALIS screens and the Pioneer style screens though as an interlaced player may be better for you (probably via component)
Phil
Wanting to make this my first Plasma or any other recommends with Hi-Def for £3000 or under..
Answers:
Something on it in this thread .
Answers:
The 3000 series of the same display is more consumer oriented and can be got for 3 grand. The fans are in the tuner box rather than the display on that model (whether that makes a difference or not)
T.
Answers:
I think the 400 model is 2.5k at richer sounds.
Answers:
[edit] - im not sure what I wrote is actually correct
Answers:
I have the 42pd3000 display. Yes its at 1024x1024. So I set my pc to display at 1024x1024 and everthing is hunkydory. I dont follow the problem, unless your video card doesn't do 1024x1024 I suppose.
Answers:
Originally posted by poggs
I have the 42pd3000 display. Yes its at 1024x1024. So I set my pc to display at 1024x1024 and everthing is hunkydory. I dont follow the problem, unless your video card doesn't do 1024x1024 I suppose.
as you actually have the display i'll repeat my thoughts, but please feel free to let me know if i'm wrong
1. You need the card to be able to output 1024x1024, it either will or it won't - fair enough
2. The panel is a 16:9 ratio with a native resolution of 1024x1024 so when you link up a PC (PC pixels are square) the picture will have a distorted aspect ratio
3. This may or may not bother you for normal use but would bother me and isn't any good for watching DVDs (software may be able to correct this)
4. If you feed it any other ratios then the signal will have to be scaled to fit the panel which may be great or may be rubbish (what's your experience of this ?)
5. Of course most of the above is irrelevant if you are just plugging "normal" devices in and using it with a PC ocassionally/never - in which case if the picture looks good to you then go for it :)
I also think seem to recall that these screens use ALIS (?) technology which is different to that used by the Pioneer - not having seen or own either i'm not sure which is better/worse or if they are just different
Personally i'm after one that has a true 16:9 resolution, can accurately display a range of refresh rates (is this possible or do they already)
Phil
Answers:
aha ok so it would be better going for a Plasma TV rather than display? ( i thought they were the same) I want to just watch DVD's only on it, no PC or TV signal on it.
Answers:
The Plasma displays usually have reasonable connectivity (component/svideo/composite/vga) - but it's on the Plasma TVs (usually via a tuner box you get things like RGB SCART etc
A progressive scan DVD will be your best bet - do check out the differences between the ALIS screens and the Pioneer style screens though as an interlaced player may be better for you (probably via component)
Phil
1 2